On September 26, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters Institute for Journalism, met reporters for . ⓒEPN Shin Seon-young In April 2020, in Birmingham and Liverpool, England, a communication tower was burned one after another. It was a time when conspiracy theories were spreading that 5G internet would spread Corona 19. It wasn’t just the UK. From methanol to salt water to dairy product ‘Vulgaris’, only the ‘material’ changed, and false information and fake news related to the preventive effect of Corona 19 spread across countries. From the point of view of crisis communication, the pandemic was an unprecedented event in the global press. Like the ‘5G controversy’, it did not end with simply correcting false information. Uncertain information piled up at every moment, and while keeping the government in check, it was necessary to deliver the government’s COVID-19 quarantine policy at the forefront. Some articles have helped us understand the pandemic, while others have been a hindrance to quarantine. If you are going to ‘review’ the COVID-19 pandemic, media coverage is an important part. This is why visited the Reuters Journalism Institute affiliated with Oxford University, UK. It has published several reports on the topic of infodemic over the past three years. It refers to a phenomenon in which uncertain or misinformation spreads like an epidemic through the media. “COVID-19 was as much a communication emergency as a medical crisis,” said Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, professor of political and communication at Oxford University, who led the study. On September 26, he met with Director Nielsen at the Reuters Institute for Journalism, located within Oxford University. How was the British press in terms of reporting on COVID-19? Overall, the British press has tried to respond responsibly to the pandemic crisis. As a result, news consumers tended to follow the government’s quarantine guidelines, understand key terms related to the virus, and understand the benefits of vaccination. At the same time, however, many British people were dissatisfied with the fact that the media did not make much of a difference in reporting in times of crisis. According to a Reuters Journalism Institute survey on 25 August 2020, 35% of 1003 UK respondents said that the way the news was reported made the epidemic crisis worse. What was it? There are several factors. The British press has spent a lot of time reporting politicians’ remarks about the COVID-19 crisis. A large majority of British people do not have much trust or interest in politicians and government. This means that lengthy quotations from politicians or paying too much attention to their words may not feel reliable or useful information in an infectious disease crisis. On the other hand, medical staff were regarded as highly respected and reliable sources of information. Of course, a pandemic crisis is a political crisis in nature, and monitoring power is an important role for the media. Some reports focused too much on the ‘problem’ and thus distanced themselves from the lives of citizens. In South Korea, the media has also been criticized for causing confusion in the government’s quarantine policy. In the context of a public health crisis, should the media focus more on ‘policy monitoring’ or ‘preventive cooperation’? Respect various views on the role of the media. You can only say for sure what people want in the press. independence of news. Being independent does not necessarily mean being hostile or opposed to government. We expect the media to report with their own point of view without fear or favor, as to whether the government’s words are credible and whether there are any omissions. One way is to give governments the right to object, but rely on various experts and international sources of information to verify their statements. For the past three years, the Reuters Institute for Journalism has focused on infodemics. The COVID-19 pandemic is very important in that it is an event experienced all over the world. By nature, journalism is good at dealing with new things. Likes to clearly explain confusing situations. But the pandemic was uncertain. In particular, we had to deal with a large amount of uncertain information at once, and there were parts where even quarantine experts could not fully agree. From a policy point of view, there was no single answer. Journalists had to learn to deal with this concept of uncertainty. On April 7, 2020, local reporters gathered in front of the hospital where then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was hospitalized for Corona 19. ⓒEPA What does it mean to deal with uncertainty? There were various interpretations from time to time even among doctors and researchers regarding the COVID-19 epidemic or quarantine policy. If the media had reported as if there was only one scientific opinion, it would have harmed quarantine. Sometimes, some politicians and opinion leaders expressed their personal opinions without sufficient evidence about the effectiveness of masks and vaccines. There were also media outlets that gave ‘space’ to those who lacked public health expertise. However, the opinions of politicians and critics and the judgment of scientists should not be treated equally. To equate two opinions is ‘wrong balance’. What are the points each press should reflect on for the next pandemic? The media must have or have access to scientific expertise. Imagine a situation where you have been covering the food and sports fields (reporters with no financial or defense expertise) and dealing with national budgets or security policies without consulting experts. When dealing with a pandemic crisis, it is important to report on real public health and medical knowledge. Newsrooms without science-educated journalists will struggle to evaluate the claims of different sources. In that sense, each media outlet is required to invest in the scientific expertise of the newsroom. It is also necessary to prepare for the information vulnerable class. The UK is a country with a diverse media landscape, but more and more people don’t trust the news. According to the results of the 2020 survey, the number of people who said they “consumed little or no news about COVID-19 and do not trust the news” increased from 6% at the beginning of the epidemic to 15% by the end of August of that year. However, the current media environment encourages the relatively privileged rather than immigrants, workers and the poor. It is necessary to look back at who paid more for the infectious disease disaster, and whether the media coverage reached enough information vulnerable groups. ※ This project was supported by the Press Promotion Fund, which was raised as a government advertisement fee.
[세계의 코로나 대응, 현장을 가다]
1. Japan – Japan’s effort and reflection to save its neighbors www.EPN.co.kr/48618 – Settling community care through team medical care www.EPN.co.kr/48619 2. Sweden – Sweden What’s different about the coronavirus strategy? www.EPN.co.kr/48670 – Why did Sweden open schools www.EPN.co.kr/48671 – “You must not forget that you are living” www.EPN.co.kr/48672 – Work ·How to reconcile childrearing and family life www.EPN.co.kr/48673 3.UK – How the UK is coping with disaster inequality www.EPN.co.kr/48728 – “Pandemic exposes and amplifies inequality ” www.EPN.co.kr/48729 – 500m along the River Thames, a wall filled with red hearts www.EPN.co.kr/48777 – A ‘gap’ filled by the independent scientific advisory group www.EPN.co.kr/48779 – ” Media should invest in professional knowledge” www.EPN.co.kr/48771 # This project was supported by the Press Promotion Fund, which was raised through government advertising fees.
ssn-general
